The ranking you didn't know you needed
Most of us pick a solo travel destination based on Instagram reels, a friend's offhand recommendation, or a flight deal that felt too good to ignore. But a new study by US travel insurance comparison platform Squaremouth has done the unglamorous work of actually comparing over 100 countries by how safe they are for people travelling alone.
The methodology isn't just about crime statistics. Squaremouth layered in the Global Peace Index, Numbeo's perception-of-safety data, mobile internet download speeds, and access to quality medical care — all filtered through countries that already rank "high" or "very high" on the Human Development Index. The result is a composite risk score out of 10, where lower is safer.
Top of the list is San Marino — the tiny landlocked microstate inside Italy — with a risk score of just 0.78. Nine in ten locals say they're comfortable walking alone at night there, which is a number that would make most city-dwellers anywhere in the world quietly envious. Andorra (1.33) and Singapore (1.56) follow closely. Austria, Czechia, Qatar, Estonia, Brunei, Denmark and Slovenia round out the top ten.
Europe dominates, with seven of the ten safest destinations sitting on the continent.
What the metrics are actually measuring
It's worth slowing down on the methodology because it tells you something useful. Night-time walkability isn't just a comfort metric — it's a proxy for how free a solo traveller feels to move spontaneously, which is the whole point of going alone. Internet speed matters because connectivity is safety: being able to call for help, navigate unfamiliar streets, or share your location in real time changes the risk equation entirely. And healthcare access is especially relevant for solo travellers, who have no travel companion to advocate for them in a medical situation.
None of the destinations in the top ten are conflict zones or politically unstable — that much is obvious — but the more interesting signal is how the study weights lived, everyday safety over abstract geopolitical risk. A place can be technically peaceful and still feel hostile or inaccessible to a person travelling on their own.
Why this matters for a solo travel audience in India
India has a complicated relationship with solo travel, particularly for women. Domestic solo trips are growing — Goa, Rishikesh, Coorg, Hampi and the Northeast all feature regularly in solo itineraries shared on Indian travel communities — but the conversation around safety is still uneven and often reactive rather than structural.
The Squaremouth framework offers a useful lens to apply closer to home. When Indian travellers evaluate a domestic destination, how often do they think about median internet speed (critical in hill stations or remote Northeast states), access to medical care (a genuine concern in certain rural circuits), or a standardised measure of how safe people feel walking around after dark?
These aren't just abstract policy questions. They're the difference between a trip that feels genuinely free and one where you're constantly managing risk in the background. As more Indians — especially younger women and first-time solo travellers — begin exploring both domestic and international destinations independently, having a clearer vocabulary for what "safe" actually means becomes genuinely practical.
The global top ten is, admittedly, a list of places most Indian passport holders will need a visa and a decent budget to visit. But the thinking behind it is portable. And it's a reminder that safety is never one thing — it's a layered, everyday experience that a destination either makes easy or quietly makes hard.